The Left Comes Out In Support Of Fred Phelps

[MachZer0]

Does the 1st Amendment exist is a vacuum?

It has been made abundantly clear to you on multiple occastions the 14th amendment applies the entire frederal constitution and all federal laws to state and local governments. So when a state justice uses state money to place a religious icon on state land he is indeed violating the 1st Amendment when the 14th is applied.

Why do "strict constructions" ignore entire parts the constitution when it suits their needs?

It was stated that the ACLU believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even if I grant you that the 14th amendment applies, what law was passed by whom that granted judges the right to display the 10 commandments and viloate the 1st amendment?

 

[nvxplorer]

It was from the link which was called a "neutral brief"' so time zones and states are irrelevant

Funny.

First off, the title of the article is "ACLU Backs Free Speech for All - Except Pro-lifers." (It helps to read the articles. Following the posts that you choose to defend would be wise as well.)

Let's find out what is and isn't relevant.

Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief...

The above is the neutral brief in question.

In post #93, george uses the following excerpt to claim, "That's not a 'neutral brief'."

Then, in 1995, the national ACLU joined its New York affiliate in defending an injunction against anti-abortion protesters, arguing that the imposition of a moving buffer zone that kept protesters 15 feet away from people entering and leaving abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment.

The 1995 New York case is irrelevant to the Oregon case. While george is correct in his claim, "That's not a neutral brief," it is irrelevant to that which he is arguing against. I may as well post a link to NASA, point to a photo of the Space Shuttle, and claim, "That's not an anti-abortion protest!"

 

[MachZer0]

One last time.

Yes it does allow them to display the 10Cs. In fact it allows everyone to freely pratice their religion. However, not to the extent where as a representative of Government, placement can be construed as endorsement by the institution the official respresents: the Government.
You seem to be stuck on something that never transpired. Congress hasn't passed anything, it's the first amendment and the issue is Government officials endorsing religon as a Goverment official on Government property.

They can display the 10Cs in their personal front yards, the hoods of their cars, or have it embroidered on their thermo underwear.

This is hardly what could be defined as a "strict interpetation" of the Constitution

 

[MachZer0]

Funny.

First off, the title of the article is "ACLU Backs Free Speech for All - Except Pro-lifers." (It helps to read the articles. Following the posts that you choose to defend would be wise as well.)

Let's find out what is and isn't relevant.

Still, the ACLU of Oregon refused to support the defendants' First Amendment claims. Instead, it submitted a friend-of-the-court brief...

The above is the neutral brief in question.

In post #93, george uses the following excerpt to claim, "That's not a 'neutral brief'."

Then, in 1995, the national ACLU joined its New York affiliate in defending an injunction against anti-abortion protesters, arguing that the imposition of a moving buffer zone that kept protesters 15 feet away from people entering and leaving abortion clinics did not violate the First Amendment.

The 1995 New York case is irrelevant to the Oregon case. While george is correct in his claim, "That's not a neutral brief," it is irrelevant to that which he is arguing against. I may as well post a link to NASA, point to a photo of the Space Shuttle, and claim, "That's not an anti-abortion protest!"

So how does that equate to a neutral brief?

 

[kermit]

It was stated that the ACLU believes in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Even if I grant you that the 14th amendment applies, what law was passed by whom that granted judges the right to display the 10 commandments and viloate the 1st amendment?

Rather than ask these cryptic questions why don't you just come out and say what you are trying (very poorly) to get at?

Are you trying to imply that because no legislative body granted Moore the right to put up the icon that the constitution wasn't broken? That it takes a legistature to break the FA? If so, that is equivalant to saying that state judges have the right to violate the US constitution.

 

[MachZer0]

Oh, it's clear alright. The courts uphold rights, not the ACLU.

To clarify, the ACLU does not support rights based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but I'm sure most people understood my meaning

 

[Doctrine1st]

This is hardly what could be defined as a "strict interpetation" of the Constitution

Sure it is, and as with the ACLU to bring it full circle, it allows for "freedom of" and "freedom from" religion just like the constitution and it's amendments says.

~take care

 

[MachZer0]

Rather than ask these cryptic questions why don't you just come out and say what you are trying (very poorly) to get at?

Are you trying to imply that because no legislative body granted Moore the right to put up the icon that the constitution wasn't broken? That it takes a legistature to break the FA? If so, that is equivalant to saying that state judges have the right to violate the US constitution.

The discussion is about a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Do you believe that, based on a "strict interpretation of the Constitution" that judges like Moore are violating the 1st Amendment which specifically, strictly, refers to Congress passing laws

 

[nvxplorer]

So how does that equate to a neutral brief?

 

[kermit]

This is hardly what could be defined as a "strict interpetation" of the Constitution

Yes it is concidering that the 14th applies the first to all levels of government and therefore prohibits all government agents and employees from doing anything "respecting the establishment" of an official religion.

For example a area postmaster has no abilty to create a law respecting the establishment of religion. However, he could require that each workday start with the Lord's prayer. Within is power this is an action he could take respecting the establishment of religion.

 

[nvxplorer]

To clarify, the ACLU does not support rights based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but I'm sure most people understood my meaning

I'm sure we all understand your meaning.

 

[kermit]

The discussion is about a strict interpretation of the Constitution. Do you believe that, based on a strict interpretation of the Constitution" that judges like Moore are violating the 1st Amendment which specifically, strictly, refers to Congress passing laws

Does a strict interpretation mean ignoring parts of the constitution that don't follow your view? Why are you ignoring the role the 14th amendment plays in interpreting the 1st amendment as it applies to a state justice?

 

[MachZer0]

Sure it is, and as with the ACLU to bring it full circle, it allows for "freedom of" and "freedom from" religion just like the constitution and it's amendments says.

~take care

The Constitution, strictly speaking, doesn't mention freedom of or freedom from religion

 

[MachZer0]

Does a strict interpretation mean ignoring parts of the constitution that don't follow your view? Why are you ignoring the role the 14th amendment plays in interpreting the 1st amendment as it applies to a state justice?

Strictly speaking, the 14th amendment is being misused and misinterpreted, not strictly interpreted

 

[MachZer0]

Yes it is concidering that the 14th applies the first to all levels of government and therefore prohibits all government agents and employees from doing anything "respecting the establishment" of an official religion.

For example a area postmaster has no abilty to create a law respecting the establishment of religion. However, he could require that each workday start with the Lord's prayer. Within is power this is an action he could take respecting the establishment of religion.

Can you quote the part of the 14th amendment which says that by a strict interpretation?

 

[MachZer0]

Ignoring for the moment the probably attempt here to ignore the 14th Amendment, the answer to your question would be the enabling legislation which keeps those buildings operating. If they are run in such a manner, then each and every expenditure of public funds (a process carried out by law) is in fact a LAW which violates the 1st Amendment.

The first amendment doesn't address expenditures of public funds, but Constitutionally, most expenditures of public federal funds today are unconstitutional and should be ended

 

[nvxplorer]

The Constitution, strictly speaking, doesn't mention freedom of or freedom from religion

strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.

Note that the definition begins with the word "interpreting." The free exercise clause is interpreted to mean "freedom of." The establishment clause is interpreted to mean "freedom from."

 

[nvxplorer]

The first amendment doesn't address expenditures of public funds, but Constitutionally, most expenditures of public federal funds today are unconstitutional and should be ended

Oh dear.

The First Amendment addresses religion and law. Funds are appropriated by law. Therefore, the First Amendment does indeed address the expenditure of funds.

 

[MachZer0]

strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes. By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society.

Note that the definition begins with the word "interpreting." The free exercise clause is interpreted to mean "freedom of." The establishment clause is interpreted to mean "freedom from."

So then, are you in agreement with me that the ACLU does not base its lawsuits and other activities on a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[nvxplorer]

So then, are you in agreement with me that the ACLU does not base its lawsuits and other activities on a strict interpretation of the Constitution?

I have not expressed an opinion either way, nor do I care.